Lala alias Vijendra Kumar vs Distt. Magistrate and Others

A.N. Gupta and R.P. Nigam, JJ.—The Petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 20.10.1997 passed against him by the District Magistrate, Faizabad, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act in order to prevent the Petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order.

At the time when detention order was passed against the Petitioner, he was in jail in connection with Crime No. 2058 of 1997 u/s 394 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act. Police Station Kotwali Nagar, district Faizabad, which is subject-matter of ground number one. The District Magistrate has mentioned in the ground of detention that the Petitioner was making all efforts to obtain bail and to come out from jail.

Although, the Petitioner has been detained on two grounds, the District Magistrate who is detaining authority has in paragraph 4 of his counter-affidavit given up ground No. 2 and has stated that while passing the detention order, he did not take into consideration ground No. 2. It leaves ground No. 1 alone which need not be cited because the petition can be disposed of otherwise.

It was averred by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there was considerable delay in disposal of the representation by Central Government. It has been stated by the District Magistrate in his counter-affidavit that the Petitioner�s representation dated 3.11.1997 was received by him on the same day. The next day i.e., on 4.11.1997 he asked for comments from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad, which were not received and reminder dated 15.11.1997 was sent. Ultimately para-wise comments of the Sr. S.P., Faizabad, were received in the Office of the District Magistrate on 19.11.1997. Thereafter, the District Magistrate sent it to the State Government by means of letter dated 22.11.1997 and the same was received in the Office of State Government on 24.11.1997. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, it has been averred that this representation of the Petitioner was sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, on 25.11.1997. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India, shows that it received that representation of the Petitioner on 2.12.1997. Thus, it took the representation of the Petitioner exactly one month to travel from Faizabad to New Delhi. When the representation had been received on 3.11.1997 by the District Magistrate, there is no explanation as to why the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Faizabad, took more than two weeks to send his para-wise comments. Similarly, there is no explanation as to how it took about a week''s time for the representation to reach from the State Government at Lucknow to Union of India at New Delhi. The fact remains that exactly one month''s time was taken in sending the representation of the Petitioner to the Government of India. There can be no justification for this delay. Apart from this, according to para 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by Rohtash Singh, Under-Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, the said representation of the Petitioner, after obtaining additional information from the State Government, was put up by the Under Secretary to the Joint Secretary on 17.12.1997 and the Joint Secretary put it up before the Minister of State for Home, Government of India, on 4.2.1998, i.e., after a lapse of about 18 days. Again there is no explanation as to why the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, in the office of Ministry of Home Affairs, took about 18 days in sending the file containing the Petitioner�s representation to the Minister of State for Home. These facts show that the Petitioner�s representation was dealt with in a very casual manner and violating the fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 2 of the Constitution. It renders the continued detention invalid.

In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Continued detention of the Petitioner is held to be invalid. The Petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in some other case.